Sorry, your gown is hanging off you

Cody Pomeray

Is there any conceivable excuse for traipsing into court with your clothes hanging off you, and worse, addressing the court in this state of semi undress?

This phenomenon started with young female BLs and has now spread to both sexes. Advancing age only seems to aggravate it.

Would these people come into court with their arse hanging out? Don't get me wrong, I think the gown is a silly anachronism, I don't believe there is a place for it anymore, but is dishevelment a legitimate form of rebellion, or are these people just slouches?

johnnyskeleton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Is there any conceivable excuse for traipsing into court with your clothes hanging off you, and worse, addressing the court in this state of semi undress?

This phenomenon started with young female BLs and has now spread to both sexes. Advancing age only seems to aggravate it.

Would these people come into court with their arse hanging out? Don't get me wrong, I think the gown is a silly anachronism, I don't believe there is a place for it anymore, but is dishevelment a legitimate form of rebellion, or are these people just slouches?

Is it deliberate or is it more the case that the gowns were designed in an era when barristers were of a more portly disposition and now with skinny people coming into court the gowns are just too broad for their shoulders?

Cody Pomeray

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Is it deliberate or is it more the case that the gowns were designed in an era when barristers were of a more portly disposition and now with skinny people coming into court the gowns are just too broad for their shoulders?

It may be semi deliberate in that, yes, it slips off a bit from time to time. My shoelaces come undone from time to time, it's no excuse not to correct it.

This minor design flaw now seems to have become something of a fashion, I would guess.

lOWCOUNTRY

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It may be semi deliberate in that, yes, it slips off a bit from time to time. My shoelaces come undone from time to time, it's no excuse not to correct it.

This minor design flaw now seems to have become something of a fashion, I would guess.

I blame the parents!

NoQuarter

It sadly appears to be a fashion. Thankfully I don't see it too much but there are a number of usual perpetrators.

Everyones slips from time to time but its easy to a) know it has slipped off and b) fix it.

Now, knowing when it is in the line of a fire extinguisher is less easy to foresee.

hullaballoo

NoQuarter wrote: »

Now, knowing when it is in the line of a fire extinguisher is less easy to foresee.

I've lost count of the number of times my gown has gotten caught on the outside handle of a door that I am now inside. Particularly embarrassing when it's a button-release door.

feargale

The Rule of Law is in danger of collapsing.

LowKeyReturn

I've seen a number of barristers throw their wigs into bags. After finding how much they cost and watching far to many TV court shows I was quite shocked as I thought they were well cared for items.

Apparently the more worn it all looks, and this includes the capes, the busier the barrister is supposed to be. Some SCs seem to be the worst offenders.

hullaballoo

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I've seen a number of barristers throw their wigs into bags. After finding how much they cost and watching far to many TV court shows I was quite shocked as I thought they were well cared for items.

Apparently the more worn it all looks, and this includes the capes, the busier the barrister is supposed to be. Some SCs seem to be the worst offenders.

Yeah, my master goes around like a maypole, ribbons flailing everywhere from his gown.

I haven't seen a wig in a while, I suppose that was just another fad as well.

valleyoftheunos

"what my gown? half way past my @r$e? far to busy to notice that sort of thing."

hullaballoo

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

"what my gown? half way past my @r$e? far to busy to notice that sort of thing."

As if we'd say that! It's "a[noparse]rs[/noparse]e" ffs.

Grolschevik

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

"what my gown? half way past my @r$e? far to busy to notice that sort of thing."

I always figured that it's just too much of a hassle to be constantly hoiking them back up...

valleyoftheunos

Grolschevik wrote: »

I always figured that it's just too much of a hassle to be constantly hoiking them back up...

Perhaps but like the proverbial tie over the shoulder I suspect it's affected nonchalance. I have to say it never bothers me, I just thing it looks a little silly especially on devils and the like.

Victor

Aren't the young 'uns wearing them as wraps, to keep off the autumn chill?

Cody Pomeray

It does have something of an old-woman-of-the-roads air to it, alright. It also reminds me of the Grand Old Duke of York's men, neither up nor down.

Lets hope the Legal Services Bill will resolve this trend altogether, and reasonable adults will finally come to work without a frock !

Tom Young

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Lets hope the Legal Services Bill will resolve this trend altogether, and reasonable adults will finally come to work without a frock !

On that I disagree. The Courts are too open. I don't think the State should spend hundreds of thousands of Euro putting in physical bars in order that the Courts know who is Counsel and who is not.

The wearing of Tabs, Collars, wigs and gowns is reasonable, professional and traditional. Marking the limits of a persons profession. Further, lay litigants are more and more having to come to court. It is a not so obvious problem.

The gown draggers drive me mad too, but that more OCD than anything else on my part.

Tom

Cody Pomeray

They're certainly traditional, that argument is a bit lost on me Tom. Change for the sake of change is as weak an argument as tradition for the sake of tradition, so it might be preferable if we agree not to go embark on either route in the first place.

In actual fact, the idea of serious grown ups going to work in wigs and a gowns is such a prima facie absurdity in modern life, that there has to be a significant rationale in its favour.

The professionalism argument. I don't agree that the paraphernalia of advocacy is a necessary distinguishing feature of the modern Barrister. Surely simply wearing a card around your neck or on your person like any other professional in another modern organization is adequate for identification.

In fact, the currently mandated attire affects a mistaken belief that justice is as archaic and removed from real life as court dress itself. Lord Phillips in the UK has been vocal on this point.

But further, and more seriously, court dress can be an uncomfortable intrusion on communication between Barrister and client, especially where you are dealing with someone who is very vulnerable, or actually terrified by the prospect of being at Court. If they find their own Counsel daunting, imagine the dread of being perched before the bewigged and gowned adversary - especially in personal injuries and criminal cases. It is an un-necessary stressor.

In fact, everyone can have their way to an extent, since the whole thing will be optional anyway. Those who feel uncomfortable in Court dress (and I presume this includes the shawlies) will simply give up on it, and those who want to maintain it can do so anyway.

LowKeyReturn

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

In actual fact, the idea of serious grown ups going to work in wigs and a gowns is such a prima facie absurdity in modern life, that there has to be a significant rationale in its favour.

The wigs are pretty much gone, they were and I believe are, hung on to by some as they help in making the barrister less recognizable to people. I'm not sure I'd want to be having a conversation with someone I'd been prosecuting in the Blanchardstown shopping centre doing my weekly shop. (not that I do either of course).

The gowns are pretty standard in most court systems. I'm not sure how far you take it. Do ties become 'to formal', does a suit?

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The professionalism argument. I don't agree that the paraphernalia of advocacy is a necessary distinguishing feature of the modern Barrister. Surely simply wearing a card around your neck or on your person like any other professional in another modern organization is adequate for identification.

I actually find the plastic card thing quite humiliating and refuse to wear mine around my neck. I'm not a piece of livestock and it stays in my pocket. Different strokes for different folks.

In regard to the paraphernalia some of the things you've listed as a disadvantage I'd say is an advantage. Many of the barristers I speak to comment on how polite many of the 'repeat customers' of the criminal courts can be. The system sets it apart from the daily interactions they have and puts manners on them. Even in the civil sphere our system is adversarial. I've seen the odd barrister put people in tears in personal injury cases, I don't think how they were dressed would make much difference. There are systems in place for truly venerable people.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

In fact, the currently mandated attire affects a mistaken belief that justice is as archaic and removed from real life as court dress itself. Lord Phillips in the UK has been vocal on this point.

Perhaps, but then again perhaps it should be to some degree.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But further, and more seriously, court dress can be an uncomfortable intrusion on communication between Barrister and client, especially where you are dealing with someone who is very vulnerable, or actually terrified by the prospect of being at Court. If they find their own Counsel daunting, imagine the dread of being perched before the bewigged and gowned adversary - especially in personal injuries and criminal cases. It is an un-necessary stressor.

Addressed above.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

In fact, everyone can have their way to an extent, since the whole thing will be optional anyway. Those who feel uncomfortable in Court dress (and I presume this includes the shawlies) will simply give up on it, and those who want to maintain it can do so anyway.

I don't think they're uncomfortable just scruffy. That said the wigs are now optional and some still wear them. I think the majority would keep the capes but I've no basis for that assertion.

valleyoftheunos

Going by those I've spoken to (quite casually ISS) on the topic, many down the law library see the the Black three piece, gown and tabs as a status symbol and sort of badge of honour. Wigs it would seem are not dissimilar. Perhaps its just that the type of person attracted to a career at the bar are not quick to dismiss tradition.

I think it is perhaps unlikely to change very drastically in a short period although I would not be surprised to see the wearing of gowns and such fall away in the medium to long term.

Of course its worth remembering that the idea of intimidation cuts both ways, it might be the client today but could be the witness a barrister is cross examining tomorrow. A weakness one day an advantage the next.

johnnyskeleton

In reality, courtrooms are going to be a completely different setting than the place in which the events took place.

If you wanted courts to represent the reality of the people and events that are being litigated, you would have judges rocking into court in a trackie and six dutch telling the Garda that he's a scumbag for hassling me and not chasing the real criminals in de banks.

So saying that the formal court wear makes a court appear more formal and stuffy than everyday life is fine. The question is, why is that considered such a bad thing?

Cody Pomeray

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

The wigs are pretty much gone, they were and I believe are, hung on to by some as they help in making the barrister less recognizable to people. I'm not sure I'd want to be having a conversation with someone I'd been prosecuting in the Blanchardstown shopping centre doing my weekly shop. (not that I do either of course).

Because you didn't do a good job or something?

I'm being facetious. But Gardaí and most barristers don't feel a need to shrink under the cover of a wig, I'd certainly doubt that those counsel who retain the wig would be, to put this very delicately, the type of people to be easily intimidated.

The gowns are pretty standard in most court systems. I'm not sure how far you take it. Do ties become 'to formal', does a suit?

I think maintaining some minimum standard is fair, preferably one that is self-imposed or regulated by peer pressure, as it is in other professions. I don't think it is appropriate that the system for the processing of justice, which serves all of the public, ought to determine which clothes any individual wears when coming before the Courts. The only time that might be appropriate is when those clothes may be so obscene as to upset and distract the Court and its procedures, such as in the case of a recent topless accused.

I actually find the plastic card thing quite humiliating and refuse to wear mine around my neck. I'm not a piece of livestock

This is common practice in most other professions from bouncers to Consultant medical practitioners, none of which are livestock.

Many of the barristers I speak to comment on how polite many of the 'repeat customers' of the criminal courts can be. The system sets it apart from the daily interactions they have and puts manners on them.

It's not the Barrister's role to 'put manners' on an individual who comes before the Courts, and truth be told I find your use of language a little bit alarming. The relationship between the Barrister and his client is a crucial relationship whereby the client must trust his Counsel, not be intimidated or daunted by the relationship.
Notwithstanding the fact that a Barrister should promote his clients' interests above his own self interest, if any Barrister is offended by a client's behaviour, he is perfectly entitled to refuse to act for that client, or to persuade that client into correcting his behaviour by informing the client that a Barrister may refuse to act under certain circumstances.

The use of the gown and a wig to so persuade the client, as a sort of authoritative gesture (however that would work) is improper imo.

Tom Young

So, we agree. Great.

I cross examined a person for two days, in my wig - representing the interests of my client. Same person happened, by chance, to be in my vicinity later that week. I was unrecognised.

If I explained the nature of the case, the use of garb in certain situations, has its benefits/advantages.

Trust me on that.

feargale

Tom Young wrote: »

So, we agree. Great.

I cross examined a person for two days, in my wig - representing the interests of my client. Same person happened, by chance, to be in my vicinity later that week. I was unrecognised.

If I explained the nature of the case, the use of garb in certain situations, has its benefits/advantages.

Trust me on that.

Couldn't you wear a mask instead, or dress up as a strawboy? In that case he wouldn't recognise you in court or out of it.

Cody Pomeray

@Tom Young Yes I can see a role for the wig in the criminal courts for some people, if that's their choice. And I'm entirely in favour of a tolerant legal system even if that extends the attire beyond criminal, but it should always be optional. Which it will be soon, I'm not complaining.

NoQuarter

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

but it should always be optional. Which it will be soon, I'm not complaining.

What makes you so sure? Haven't heard movement of the LSB in over a year now. Stalled?

Cody Pomeray

It's just held up in traffic apparently, it will be along shortly.

The Minister does not soujourn at the behest of the law, as we all know.

NoQuarter

Absolutely. Not this particular minister anyway.

It still has quite a ways to go though, and then the independent regulator has to be set up first, could be quite a number of years before changes take place.

Out of curiosity, what provision does away with my cape?

Cody Pomeray

S. 117 of the new Act will substitute s. 49 of the Court and Court Officers (1995) Act with this replacing provision:

49 - A legal practitioner when appearing in any court shall not be required to wear a wig or a robe of the kind heretofore worn or any other wig or robe of a ceremonial type.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2011/5811/b5811d.pdf

LowKeyReturn

It's not a case of intimidation, it's simply a case of professional detachment and not wanting to bring work home. While I agree with your sentiments I think you're a tad naive in certain areas.

As regard to a dress code enforced by peer pressure, that's exactly the reason I don't think they're going anywhere soon.

Carawaystick

Ah, I thought this was about the customers of the courts service like mr Dundon in his jox...

Bluegrass1

There was an army commandant in the four courts today in uniform. On a summers day he was clad in a heavy walking out uniform that is completely impractical. I have never heard anyone suggest that army officers uniforms should be abolished. An army officers uniform with sam browne belt and badges and shoulder straps is a relic of a bygone era. Soldiering is now done wearing combats.
The reality is that in many walks of life there are impractical traditional sets of clothing. I personally think the guards look terrible in the new blouson uniforms and the old tunic gave them more of an air of authority.

NoQuarter

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

As regard to a dress code enforced by peer pressure, that's exactly the reason I don't think they're going anywhere soon.

I'm not so sure, if that Bill is enacted, I know a few of the older generation with no interest in them who will discard them immediately. I think that will have a knock on effect until you almost feel stupid wearing one because your peers have stopped.

A bit like the wigs, the slowly phase out because each generation coming to the bar sees them less and less.

LowKeyReturn

NoQuarter wrote: »

I'm not so sure, if that Bill is enacted, I know a few of the older generation with no interest in them who will discard them immediately. I think that will have a knock on effect until you almost feel stupid wearing one because your peers have stopped.

A bit like the wigs, the slowly phase out because each generation coming to the bar sees them less and less.

Jesus - it's almost not worth bothering now! Think I'll go and do that MBA instead :pac:

NoQuarter

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Jesus - it's almost not worth bothering now! Think I'll go and do that MBA instead :pac:

Sure you're hardly just in it for a silly gown!

LowKeyReturn

Cape :pac:

johnnyskeleton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

S. 117 of the new Act will substitute s. 49 of the Court and Court Officers (1995) Act with this replacing provision:

49 - A legal practitioner when appearing in any court shall not be required to wear a wig or a robe of the kind heretofore worn or any other wig or robe of a ceremonial type.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2011/5811/b5811d.pdf

So gowns are optional but what about the tabs, or are they simply not mentioned?

Tom Young

I'm going to start wearing my wig again on foot of this thread.

NoQuarter

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So gowns are optional but what about the tabs, or are they simply not mentioned?

Ii was wondering about that myself. I assume they are a package.

Tom Young

Order 119: http://courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/6c4049b0653cad3380256d2b0046b3e6?OpenDocument

Cody Pomeray

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

It's not a case of intimidation, it's simply a case of professional detachment and not wanting to bring work home. While I agree with your sentiments I think you're a tad naive in certain areas.

Can we just take a step back here and look at this situation from a neutral perspective?

I am suggesting that serious professionals should come to work like the rest of the professional population. You might reasonably call that opinion distasteful, trivial, and maybe even offensive to tradition - but of all things, I can't agree that the notion of adults not working in fancy dress can be naive.

As someone who is detached from the Bar, I accept I might feel differently about this if I were more engaged with it. But that's largely insignificant, bewilderment with court costume is something that can be found throughout the entire legal system. In fact, it's probable that the most noteworthy opinion is of those who have nothing to do with the legal system on any level - the general population - whose confidence in the legal system must be maintained at all times. That confidence is not helped by what many see as the archaic and ludicrous mise en scene of the legal process.

Bluegrass1 wrote: »

There was an army commandant in the four courts today in uniform. On a summers day he was clad in a heavy walking out uniform that is completely impractical. I have never heard anyone suggest that army officers uniforms should be abolished. An army officers uniform with sam browne belt and badges and shoulder straps is a relic of a bygone era. Soldiering is now done wearing combats.

You won't get a complaint from me there. Costumes are costumes, from the horsehair wig on a Chief Justice's head (maybe not this CJ), down to army privates' polished black boots, it's all a children's game.

Victor

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I am suggesting that serious professionals should come to work like the rest of the professional population. You might reasonably call that opinion distasteful, trivial, and maybe even offensive to tradition - but of all things, I can't agree that the notion of adults not working in fancy dress can be naive.

Lots of occupations have work clothes or uniforms. It helps to define them in the workplace and helps other people identify their role. In this regard, the gown (properly worn) isn't unreasonable. The wig is a bit much.

Costumes are costumes, from the horsehair wig on a Chief Justice's head (maybe not this CJ), down to army privates' polished black boots, it's all a children's game.

Actually, polishing boots wasn't really about polishing boots. While yes, looking presentable is important, polishing boots was about teaching people discipline, and attention to detail and to have something the NCOs could give recruits to do without the recruits needing close supervision.

LowKeyReturn

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Can we just take a step back here and look at this situation from a neutral perspective?

I am suggesting that serious professionals should come to work like the rest of the professional population. You might reasonably call that opinion distasteful, trivial, and maybe even offensive to tradition - but of all things, I can't agree that the notion of adults not working in fancy dress can be naive.

As someone who is detached from the Bar, I accept I might feel differently about this if I were more engaged with it. But that's largely insignificant, bewilderment with court costume is something that can be found throughout the entire legal system. In fact, it's probable that the most noteworthy opinion is of those who have nothing to do with the legal system on any level - the general population - whose confidence in the legal system must be maintained at all times. That confidence is not helped by what many see as the archaic and ludicrous mise en scene of the legal process.

You won't get a complaint from me there. Costumes are costumes, from the horsehair wig on a Chief Justice's head (maybe not this CJ), down to army privates' polished black boots, it's all a children's game.

Again I agree with your sentiments, I also see your point of view but disagree with it. I don't think the general public really care how the legal profession dress. The ones that do might equally hold the opinion that we do not want to 'Americanise' the Irish court system.

The naivety I refer to isn't in relation to your opinions, that again I disagree with, but are well thought out and insightful, but to Mr/Mrs BL being approached on a Sunday afternoon in Tesco doing the weekly shop with the kids by someone who sells drugs for a living asking about their case. I know it might sound odd but barristers look totally different in the gown - an example being the disgustingly fit Brendan Foley running past me on Parkgate Street during his lunch time run, saying hello, and it taking me a good minute to work out who the hell he was!

Manach

From the outside perspective, I would say that the deportment of a standard uniform establishes a standard for being both crisp and professional in conduct. Having essentially the same clothes for all establishes a level playing field and enhances a public confidence that their own representative is of equal status to that of the opposing's party.

LowKeyReturn

Manach wrote: »

From the outside perspective, I would say that the deportment of a standard uniform establishes a standard for being both crisp and professional in conduct. Having essentially the same clothes for all establishes a level playing field and enhances a public confidence that their own representative is of equal status to that of the opposing's party.

This I whole heartedly agree with. However, when the wearers start establishing a tradition of looking like they just rolled out of bed I can see Cody's point.

Cody Pomeray

Victor wrote: »

Lots of occupations have work clothes or uniforms. It helps to define them in the workplace and helps other people identify their role.

I know but surely an ID card would do the job. I spend most of my time in another public organization where I can access staff areas, make myself known to security, use the photocopier and avail of discounts using my ID card. No need to go bewigged so that people recognize who I am.

I would further add that the courts are not the fiefdom of legal professionals. We should remember that the public usually have the option, within reason, of representing themselves before a Judge. So the wig as a quasi-swipe card has shortcomings both in its substantive validity and its relevance.

Sala

This is gas - I always notice petite female BLs with their gowns hanging off and I felt sorry for them thinking they must be only available in 2 sizes or something and it was too big, never though it might be fashionable.

It is handy to be able to spot a Barrister, especially when you don't know what yours looks like one of the others always knows. That said,they are fairly identifiable in the Family Courts with the little collar.

nuac

I think barristers of either sex like swishing around in the gowns. Each to their own I say

McCrack

As a fused profession doesn't exist in this country I think there needs to be some distinguishing feature between counsel and his instructing solicitor and barristers dress obviously does that. Majority Barristers I see around thesedays and the ones I work with don't wear a wig which I agree. There is also the history and tradition that's there that can't be snubbed however. I lean in favour of the status quo.

johnnyskeleton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Can we just take a step back here and look at this situation from a neutral perspective?

Sure. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143805

I am suggesting that serious professionals should come to work like the rest of the professional population.

What exactly does this mean? The caveat "professional population" means you implicitly accept that there should be a difference between say an accountant and a plumber, but why should a doctor and an engineer wear the same clothing? Should the accountant wear surgical scrubs or should the engineer wear a brightly coloured floor traders jacket?

Is there anything wrong with different professions wearing different types of clothes in their place of business when it performs at least an indentification purpose?

You might reasonably call that opinion distasteful, trivial, and maybe even offensive to tradition - but of all things, I can't agree that the notion of adults not working in fancy dress can be naive.

It's not "fancy dress" it's a kind of uniform. Fancy dress is wearing clothes to pretend to be a different person.

As someone who is detached from the Bar, I accept I might feel differently about this if I were more engaged with it.

I'm curious as to why someone who claims detachment has such strong views on the subject. It's similar to me saying "as someone who is detached from man united, it's obvious that they are rubbish, if only man united fans could see it"

But that's largely insignificant, bewilderment with court costume is something that can be found throughout the entire legal system. In fact, it's probable that the most noteworthy opinion is of those who have nothing to do with the legal system on any level - the general population - whose confidence in the legal system must be maintained at all times. That confidence is not helped by what many see as the archaic and ludicrous mise en scene of the legal process.

To continue my analogy, it's like me as a non football fan saying that I'm confused by the fact that man utds jerseys are red and it undermines my confidence in the system. It's basically making a snap decision based on a superficial glance.

Cody Pomeray

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Sure. The caveat "professional population" means you implicitly accept that there should be a difference between say an accountant and a plumber, but why should a doctor and an engineer wear the same clothing?

I'd like to clarify that I am referring to professional who are engaged in comparable work. Clearly, an engineer wearing slim, trim single breasted Versace on a construction site is impractical, above anything else.

Instead, I am comparing Barristers to solicitors, company directors, doctors of general practice, accountants, university lecturers and journalists, since the work is of a semi/public nature where professional office dress tends to be preferred by peers and service users.

Is there anything wrong with different professions wearing different types of clothes in their place of business when it performs at least an indentification purpose?

There is nothing wrong with different professions wearing different clothes when it serves a practical or a commercial purpose to do so. I would question the need for people to wear different dress in order to symbolize role or rank, except maybe in the armed forces. Like I said in response to Victor, this argument has no real validity or relevance in respect of most professionals in an administrative or related environment.

I'm curious as to why someone who claims detachment has such strong views on the subject. It's similar to me saying "as someone who is detached from man united, it's obvious that they are rubbish, if only man united fans could see it"

With respect, I'm not sure your curiosity is relevant. I don't have strong views on this at all, I have already described court dress as fairly trivial and have said that we ought to tolerate those who want to wear wigs and gowns. In fact in a Criminal court, I can understand it. Sure, I don't know why we're still seeing them in the Four Courts or in civil on the circuit. It's not my personal choice, but it is the personal choice of others to uphold tradition for the sake of tradition and I respect that, even if i don't quite get it.

valleyoftheunos

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

...There is nothing wrong with different professions wearing different clothes when it serves a practical or a commercial purpose to do so. I would question the need for people to wear different dress in order to symbolize role or rank, except maybe in the armed forces. Like I said in response to Victor, this argument has no real validity or relevance in respect of most professionals in an administrative or related environment...

I think that different forms of dress to show a different a role or indeed rank is entirely a practical purpose. Staff in hospitals wear different uniforms for exactly that reason. In the Courts the habit of wearing a gown distinguishes a barrister form everyone else, when you are down there trying to locate a particular barrister, being able to identify who is a barrister and who isn't at a glance is actually quite handy, it certainly doesn't serve no purpose.

You have stated a couple of times that this purpose could be achieved through id cards and lanyards and indeed it might but that doesn't mean it should be done that way or that it would be as practical or successful.

I think for many barristers and their clients the gowns are important, they are a symbol, more than just a cape or an id card and certainly more than just a silly tradition. It is for that reason that many will continue to wear them long after it is compulsory. As you have said yourself, you don't get it.